Nerd Pride Radio

The director of the psychology department sent out an email to the entire hospital to introduce his staff. He then listed all of his staff including himself and gave a paragraph or two description of each of them, their credentials, how long they've been here, etc. And it bugged me, because he didn't put his list in any sort of order. Like, if this was me, I'd definitely be putting everything in alphabetical order by last name. That just makes sense. But I could also see if he wanted to list them in order of seniority. Maybe in order by importance of their position. Maybe even help in order by which portions of the hospital they support. But no... he didn't do any of that. He just listed them in... I don't know, whatever order he thought of them in? Who does that? I mean, I know this is a small thing, and I am surprised at how much it bothers me, but I can't stop dwelling on this. If it were me, I'd definitely be doing it in alphabetical order, or SOME kind of order, because otherwise I'd be worried that people would read into the order of the list some sort of favoritism or sexism or who knows what else? At this point, since he didn't put the list in any discernible order, it just becomes a giant Rorschach test. Which is super appropriate for the psychology department, I suppose. But why?

I mean, if you were creating such a list, how would YOU do it?

Serious Paul just called. He said, "Should be in Babble."

If it was me, I would do it by chain of command. But whatever order you want to do is acceptable- as long as there is one. Random listings would bother me too.

Unless...

...they're not random.

Have you cracked his code yet?

Perhaps it was a psychological test...

I would do it in the order of how much I liked the people...just like they did

Mando wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 2:00 am I would do it in the order of how much I liked the people...just like they did

Cracked the code!

Mando wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 2:00 am I would do it in the order of how much I liked the people...just like they did

He listed "professionals" first--so anyone whose job requires a degree. And within that group, I think he wrote them down in the order he thought of them, which is a hybrid of how closely he works with each of them, and proximity to his office. He put himself second to last in this group, followed by the doctor who only comes in two days a week. Then came support staff. Then lastly were the two interns with the cute female intern listed first, despite the fact that her male counterpart would come first with any other sorting criteria I can think of.

Secondary theory: he constantly makes seemingly inconsequential choices like these that are carefully designed to make his staff question themselves and subtly stir up competitiveness and keep them motivated. Normally these are kept within the department, but here is a rare public glimpse of his master manipulation.

Could it be the way they are physically arranged as he encounters them in the building? This is how I compose my emails much of the time, because I'm thinking through spatially to make sure I don't miss anyone. But it would be better if it was a subtle tool of manipulation designed to make the staff question one another and themselves.

Am I the only person that Bill Clinton destroyed the word "Intern" for?

Yes

Must be an age thing...

zen wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:12 am Must be an age thing...

I'm pretty sure most of the people on here were voting-aged adults when that happened.

Kyle wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:17 am

zen wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:12 am Must be an age thing...

I'm pretty sure most of the people on here were voting-aged adults when that happened.

Yes, but do you remember Nixon resigning? That is my first memory of the political world at large. Then, when I was older and starting to get invested in politics, Reagan came along. I don't remember if I actually voted in the '84 election or not. I was at college at the time and didn't turn 18 until I left for college, so probably not. I think my first presidential election was 88. The election in 92, though, was the first time I actually voted for (or supported if I wasn't of voting age) a candidate that WON in a presidential election, and, for a brief period of time, I started to feel less jaded about the world...

Yeah... I went back to the standard lack of trust in elected officials that I started with from the beginning...

Okay, I'm just not following what that has to do with Clinton tainting the word intern for you- but it's not really important.

Possibility - the word could immediately take a person mentally to that mess of a place where someone you liked - who had been seen as massive improvement by many Democrats after 12 years of Republican presidents - turned out to have not only feet of clay, but really dirty, exploitative, nasty feet. I have always found Bill slimy so it doesn't really do that for me, but you know, it's like "dress" and "cigar" in the same sentence or any of those combined with "intern" will call up a memory. Probably if you asked people, who's the first person you think of when you hear the word "Intern", if you haven't been in the habit of working with them in your own professional life, you might well think of Monica. She was done dirty by the media, the world, so many people. This world.

Also my phone keeps telling me that we shouldn't rule out nukes! You know, "he" might feel he needs to use a nuke after they sank his battleship, or maybe he'll somehow put us back into the state of nature for three months of dog eat dog combat. Who can say? Cheerful.

I'll share a guess, and I think it's the right guess.

He told his team to write bios for themselves and email them to him (or more likely his assistant) when they were ready. Then each time a person emailed a bio, the bio was added to the email. So the first on the list was the person who finished and emailed the bio first, the last one was the procrastinator who they had to pull teeth to get them to send over a bio.

That is an excellent guess. I may ask him.

I think we have a winner!